Murder is committed by poor young men. When Generation Greed was at the age of murder, murder soared.

White collar crime is commited by more affluent people who have opportunties within organizations. When Generation Greed was at the age where it had the access needed to commit white colalr crime, white collar crime soared.

"rant" Definition - any statement that I don't like.
"vitriol"? - You really should get a dictionary.
I have no opinion on WT Economist's post other than that it seemed rather moderate to me and, certainly, undeserving of your vitriolic response.
Who, might I ask, stole your lollipop?

The primary reason for murder and crimes rates dropping is the availability of legal abortions. "Unwanted" children are much more likely to become violent criminals than babies who are wanted and properly loved and cared for.

There is a well-written section in "Freakonomics" by Levitt and Dubner that uses data to support their conclusion that abortions have had a greater impact on the crime rate in American cities then has "innovative" law enforcement. It is surprising that the Economist did not include this in its article. Is there any sound research that proves that "innovative" law enforcement pushes down crime rates? Politicians and law enforcement administrators who maintain that innovative law enforcement makes a difference do not seem to cite studies that support their conclusions. Numbers are bandied about and they really mean nothing. Huff described this sort of obfuscation in his short book "How to Lie with Statistics".

"Superfreakonomics", the successor book to "Freakonomics", discusses the impact of TV and speculates that too much of any TV interferes with socialization.

Research by Coopersmith in the late '60s found that increased police contact with kids in grammar school classrooms resulted in kids who had a more positive attitude towards authority.

Incarceration doesn't help. Look at California; putting so many people in prison has only helped to push the state to the brink of bankruptcy.

In sum, if there is going to be intervention it needs to be early in life before inappropriate behavior becomes an admired value.

The article misses the benefit of many video cameras in streets, shops, buses etc. and people filming activities on their cell phones and such. Just a few days ago, a New Yorker who pushed another to death under a subway train was caught on a phone camera leading to his arrest. Crime flourishes in the dark. When you shine a light on it, it dissipates. Criminals must realize that they are now more likely to get caught than before since there is a high probability of such a light shining on them all the time.

Give the police credit where it’s due but crime reduction is not entirely due to their efforts alone.

The article omits three factors previously noted by The Economist itself:

1) Many types of crime correlate to the percentage of the population that is male and between 15 and 35 years of age - the crime rate started going down as the baby boomers passed out of their prime crime time.

2) The effect of Roe v. Wade - the crime rate started going down 15 years later.

3) The growing prevalence of mobile telephony since 1990, which means the chances of apprehension for a wide range of crimes is now far greater. Likelihood of apprehension is a far greater deterent than severity of penalty.

The article reports as remarkable that in New York City there were no murders last month for a period of 36 hours. Actually with the figures given that would be an event with a 19% probability.

400 killings per year, means an average of 1.1 per day, and an average of 1.6 for a day and a half. The probability of murders can be modeled with a Poisson distribution: this gives for a 36-hour period a 19% probability of zero murders, 32% of one murder, 26% of two murders, 14% of three murders, 6% of four murders, 2% of five murders. So the event is not that remarkable.

yes, that's all true, but an event occurring for the first time in at least 49 years is certainly noteworthy. You can infer that the author is implicitly saying that the mean homicide per day rate \lambda probably hasn't been this low in a very long time; -that- is remarkable :)

Back in the 1970's when I lived in New York, violent crime was indeed really common, and a major problem. Now that I no longer live in America it is a joy to know that the rate of violent crime is falling. This is good news indeed, however I notice that the article gives us no indication of how much innovative policing has cost financially and whether this can be sustained let alone replicated nationally.

A mirror of the question posed in the article is why crime rose so much in the 50s-80s in the first place. The most persuasive unitary explanation for both changes I have seen is lead poisoning - from paint and gasoline. Neurological studies show strong impacts of blood lead levels on aggression and violence at levels commonly found in the US while crime was rising. Nationwide blood lead levels have dropped from the 13-15 microgram range in the 70s to less than 1 microgram today. A good article on the topic: http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/health/why-is-lead-still-poisoning...

I was born on the penultimate day of 1944. I have always thought that I was a boomer, conceived of a soldier just before he went off to fight and, fortunately, return.
Have I been wrong all these years?

Our local library offers free computer access and internet usage to all. Before this, the library was patroned predominantly by middle income individuals. Now young folk, with no computer at home, arrive in large noisy groups. They slouch in, ignore all the wonderful books available free to them and anyone else, and spend their afternoons in front of flashing screens. The library now provides a security guard who is generally very busy trying to get these new patrons to quieten down. I wish they would at least pass a glance at the books, but with the crime down on our streets, who can complain?

In my city, crime has been pushed out of the city center into surrounding areas. This has meant much lower violent crime rates in the center, but higher rates in surrounding municipalities. What about crime rates for metropolitan areas?

"...crime has been pushed out of the city center into surrounding areas."
Brilliant idea!
I have long thought that France had it right. Most French slums and places where riots, crime, etc are rife are in the suburbs, leaving the city centres nice and peaceful for us city-folk.

Those who wish liberty at all costs will never have a chance to enjoy it.
The world is not so black and white, guest. If a minor inconvenience on some of the population can save 5,600 lives, who are you to strike down those lives for a shade more liberty?

If you'd like to run the numbers and tell me how many 'minor inconveniences' you would be willing to tolerate to save one life, I am all ears. Judging by some of these responses, people hold their own god-given time well above a stranger's life.

Not all 5,600 were saved by this one policy, no, but are estimated via the combined efforts and policies. Again, I'd like to know the tipping point for you- how many inconveniences for one life saved? Probably a few more if the life you saved was a family member.

I find it ironic that you talk of the world not being black and white, while you yourself have reduced the nuances of a topic like arbitrary privacy infringement, by an increasingly empowered police force, into a value appraisal of him because he objects to a policy. How dare he express his opinion! We do all assume your opinion is objective knowledge, of course. This article pointed to little evidence to support the claim, and as such we do not yet have conclusive evidence weighing in on either side.

There are two important factors contributing to crime rates going down over time. Both relate to the police force itself.

The first factor is the effort to recruit more minorities in police departments. This is especially true in New York City. When you have a police department with more blacks, Hispanics, and women, the crime rate is bound to go down. Black police officers are able to develop a rapport with young black men in less time than it takes a white police officer. This is not to say that white police officers are incapable of empathy with young black men.

And a similar argument can be made for the recruitment of Hispanic police officers. Hispanic officers are normally fluent in Spanish and are able to communicate with a Hispanic population that may, in some instances, be fluent only in Spanish.

And the recruitment of women is enormously helpful in fighting crime. While a female officer may possess less physical power than a male officer, fighting crime is not just a matter of overpowering the criminal. The genesis of much crime is a dispute of some kind and women are so much better at resolving verbal disputes. This may have something to do with women being better listeners as well as better talkers. And women are so much better at demonstrating compassion for others. For some mysterious reason, both sides to a dispute are much more willing to accept the judgement of a woman as final.

The second factor contributing to lower crime rates has to do with the knowledge gained by police departments over the years about what works and what doesn't. The most important aspect here is better training for police officers. And the most important aspect of better training has to do with the best way to approach and handle people of various colors and backgrounds. A police officer is traditionally taught to be firm and in command at the scene. And she certainly needs to be firm and in charge of the situation. But her training in interpersonal psychology will giver her more control on the scene through words that lift people up rather than words that tear them down.

You have many valid points. Policing in America has changed drastically in the last 60 years. Many police forces were populated by ex-soldiers returning from the war, which had a "combative" and militaristic mentality --- thus the riot responses of the 60's and 70's with batons, tear gas and fire-hoses. Police are much more professional these days. It has gotten to the point where you virtually need at least an Associate's Degree in Criminal Justice to become a beat cop, a Bachelor's to make Sergeant, and a Masters or PhD to make the brass.

I like your reply. Many thanks. I disagree somewhat. You attribute the "combative" response of policemen in the 60's and 70's to them being ex-soldiers returning home. My understanding is that they were under orders to respond in that fashion from higher-ups, who were likely civilians. The response of police to civil unrest is often in the hands of politicians because a response to civil disobedience has to be a political response. Richard Nixon wasn't going to let college kids tell him what to do! Nowadays, there are cameras everywhere and people are using their cell phones to videotape everything. Lawyers are ready and waiting for the action to start! Civil lawsuits can make an armed officer so much sweeter.

Maybe we have become too fat/lazy to pick up that gun and shoot someone. The twinkie has become all important-- oh wait, they have taken the twinkie away! Does this mean there may be a rise in violence?

I was really surprised when I read this article that there was no mention of legalized abortion's effects on crime rates. Anyone who has read "Freakonomics" is familiar with this --- whether they agree with the theory or not. But still, no mention of it? Very sloppy research. Not up to The Economist's usual standards.